I think the movie was pretty visionary. We'll be landing men on Mars long before portable hand held directed energy weapons become a working reality.
Socialism : The Future Is Clear, Its The Past That Is Always in Motion

Someone smarter than me may correct my response, but I believe the three components for the exothermic reaction, heat, an oxygenator and fuel are all chemically contained in the cartridge casing.
That is why a gun can be fired underwater.

They weren't in a vacuum when inside the station. I suspect the oxygen level was higher than earth, thus a gun would easily work.
Listen, do you smell something? -Ray Stantz

I didn't have time to read all 100 responses to this threadbut an obvious question:
Shotguns, i.e., gunpowder requires oxygen to trigger an exothermic reaction. Would a shotgun even work in space? I think Mythbuster's did show that a gun will successfully fire in a vacuum.

Just because it's the future doesn't mean they'd have energy weapons. This movie was obviously going for a more realistic approach and considering guns have been around for 100s of years and still use bullets, I'd say their choice was pretty accurate.
For my latest movie reviews and news:
http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

I know this is old, but there is one (possible) obvious answer. Lasers and high power rifles, tend to penetrate. Even handguns. Not a good thing in a box, where the pressure differential would mean blowout or suffocation.
Shotguns wouldn't have much chance to penetrate a hull or a reinforced window. I think it was pretty forward thinking to use only shotguns. Non-lethal weapons? Defeats the purpose (for the hitmen, anyway).
This movie was supposed to be a western in space, so non-lethal wouldn't be consistent with the intended theme of "high noon". Also, the mindset was different in the late 70's early 80's. The tazer was still only a concept as a "mainstream" weapon (Although there was the predecessor to the tazor that we know today) and non-lethal weapons limited to rubber bullets.
A good movie that still stands the test of time, despite the outdated computer graphics. Should have a higher score.

There are lots of reason. Cheaper than a laser weapon. Less likely to break down since it's a simple mechanical device. Options in type of ammunition: shot, slug, or rubber. Ideal for close range work (which is what you would use in a smaller confined area like the station (though they do find that big open area in the greenhouse) And most importantly of all, shotguns work prefect when it comes to stopping people. That's not to say you couldn't use a futuristic laser as well as they would have their own pros, but it's not a ridiculous idea to use them.

Space mining? Not in our lifetime unless there are massive advances in robotics because it sure won't be done by humans. We can't go into space because of Galactic cosmic radiation. The moon's about as far as we go, we can't even get to Mars because of it regardless of the BS PR you may here. Oh sure, you'd make it there but it would be a death sentence. And that says nothing of the other rigors of space travel and the inherent dangers.
However, phasers will be a reality sooner than later.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/look-out-spock-pentagon-works-on-real-life-phasers/

I didn't get the impression that this picture took place in the far distant future. My guess is that in my life time (another 25 years) we will be mining Near Earth Asteroids and we may land on Mars. This might be 100 years into the future. Ships don't travel fast, no where close to light speed. Why shotguns? For the same reasons modern police like them. Short range, wide spread of shot, cheap to buy, cheap ammo.

This message has been deleted.

But would a shotgun be the weapon of choice for an assassin? I don't think so. I'd say they lack enough precision for that kind of "job". Without resorting to "ray guns" they could have used any other kind of projectile weapon with low penetration rate but better aim than a shotgun.

The shotguns are used to take down perps at close range inside a sealed environment. Light weapons or even handguns would just ricochet around until they hit SOMETHING.
I think the reason they had the smokers was to show that the a lot of the people there were lowlifes.

Nothing beats a good old fashioned kinetic projectile weapon!
Shottys rock! now or in the future.

If all my years of watching SCI-FI movies etc have taught me one thing it is this.
Protectile weapons are great, they work, you aim, shoot target is wounded or killed.
Laser weapons etc, are horrible. The only upside is they dont require realoading in most cases but this is offset by the fact they miss 90% of the time. Unless your a hero.

Due to that sicko James Earl Ray and his gang killing a great orator potential leader and probably great president Dr King..we must see a black man in every movie,every ad,every tv show,every radio spot etc.etc.
I have stopped watching everything unless there is an Irishman in it.

As another poster stated, tasers would be infinitely more useful.
The problem with a shotgun is that it's prone to hitting more than what you targeted. Not very smart in enclosed spaces with lots of people and valuable technology stuck in every corner.
We all saw how useful the shotgun was in the chase sequence; our hero ended up having to go hand-to-hand with the criminal before he could even get a chance to use the thing.

energy weapons and even bullet guns can penatrate high density materials eg. the hull of the space station/moon base causing decompresion shotgun rounds are less likly to do this so if you have to have guns in space shotguns are the most sensable option

You can't beat kinetic-energy weaponslook what happens when a FLECK OF PAINT ploughs into a spacecraft (e.g. the Shuttle's window damage). That said, you also can't beat the energy-density of conventional (nitrocellulose) gun propellants. Things like metal matrix composites (lighter, more durable barrels), amorphous metal projectiles and electronic/primerless ignition are things, down the line, that would make firearms work even better. The OPTICS, BTW, were interesting (see the scene in the greenhouse).
Exactly. More thoughts
The energy in a bullet is transferred to the target almost instantly on the impact. That allows the bullet to do massive damage very easily. An energy-based weapon would need to maintain its point on a target for some period of time in order to transfer the radiant energy. If your target is moving erratically good luck.
Beams tend to widen and dissipate with range, so your beam instead of being an awesome cool laser cutting tool turns into more of a hot lamp or a weak light as the distance increases. A bullet however moving in vacuum when it hits will still hit as hard as when it left the muzzle.
I suppose we'd have to clarify if we're shooting a beam of electromagnetic radiation (light, X-rays, microwaves, UV, IR, etc) out of our energy weapon, or a beam of particles moving near the speed of light (electrons, protons, neutrons). In either case the weapon would be a major engineering challenge to get enough power focused and directed and transferred quickly enough to cause harm. And making it easily portable by hand. Basically you need to make a city-sized power plant small enough to carry in the hand, and then there's creating and focusing the beam and managing the heat
So guns are going to be around to stay for a long, long time. Unless somebody can somehow make micro-sized nuclear or fusion reactors and get over the other major design problems.

You can't beat kinetic-energy weaponslook what happens when a FLECK OF PAINT ploughs into a spacecraft (e.g. the Shuttle's window damage). That said, you also can't beat the energy-density of conventional (nitrocellulose) gun propellants. Things like metal matrix composites (lighter, more durable barrels), amorphous metal projectiles and electronic/primerless ignition are things, down the line, that would make firearms work even better. The OPTICS, BTW, were interesting (see the scene in the greenhouse).
One serious goof was the depressurisation/people popping thing. This apparently does NOT happen. You would die from hypoxia and embolisms, but your skin is pretty good at keeping your stuff insideso-called 'skinsuits' were popular in the '50s-'60s and are being investigated again. The suits don't look 'inflated', either. Also, this was overused as a device in the film. However, in other aspects, this was a pretty decent film.

. . . what is up with these movies set in the distant future,and there still using shotguns.they have achieved intergalactic space travel but they haven't developed any energy weapons . . .
Intergalactic? Not in
Outland
, or
Ghosts of Mars
either. Do you even know what a galaxy is?
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

Of course, predicting the future is incredibly hard. For instance, most older sci-fi stories never predicted the advent of cellphones (even in Outland, how much easier would it have been if O'Neil and Lazarus had been in touch via some kind of personal comms equipment?)
That's why it's always been my belief that a good sci-fi story is quite vague about the actual workings of the tech involved, and more concerned with the story itself and particularly about the morality or implications of having such technical abilities. For instance, The Sound Of Thunder is still a brilliant sci-fi story even though it's getting on a bit because it isn't really about the mechanisms of time-travel, more about its possible implications. These are the stories that seem to age better.
That said, I can still appreciate films like Outland and other stories that don't get everything spot-on. I mean, Outland is still a cracking film with great character studies and it's still one of my all-time favourites.

"I love this movie,i think it was one of connerys best.That said what is up with these movies set in the distant future,and there still using shotguns.they have achieved intergalactic space travel but they haven't developed any energy weapons both leathal and non leathal."
Ok, first of all, this movie is NOT set in the distant future, nor is there any intergalactic travel in it.
But in general, your question is still important. One of the important elements of science-fiction is the speculation in it. The writer/director/creator uses what he knows in the present and speculates on what the future could be.
Outland presents a somewhat grim near future, reminiscent of the cyberpunk genre of sci-fi, and mixes it with a dramatic plot straight out of a good old western. It gets a lot of "science" wrong and the speculation on some things (like computers) is way off. But the gun actually do not look so out of place when compared with the level of technology that seems available.
Naturally, the more science-fiction ages, the more certain elements are off. Some elements might be too advanced (optimisitic), others are too pessimistic. The series Spcae: 1999, for instance. It presents computers that are WAY too unwieldly with archaic interfaces compared to what was actually available in 1999. It has personal coms that look not too far from what is available in 1999 and it has laser guns and manned lunar bases which are much too advanced for 1999.

Maybe,,,
Peter Hyams just liked shotguns.

Think of it this way: did you go to work in your flying car today? How's that jet-pack working these days? We may communicate with advanced technology, but we still kill people the same way.
If we all liked the same movie, there'd only be one movie!